Consultant details serious irregularities in stadium renovation

| Friday May 20, 2011 00:00

Formation of a reference groupA Technical Reference Group (TRG), made up of 10 senior government officials, was formed to shorten the period decisions are taken. The TRG met fortnightly to pass decisions on clarifications of briefs.

TRG's first major decision was the recruitment of a Landscape specialist to join the team. During the first TRG meeting, a design brief was agreed upon. It had a softball facility, a cafeteria, multi-purpose hall for 5,000 people, administration offices, soccer-cum-athletics stadium with additional sitting of between 5,000 to 10,000, a stadia retractable roof, TV and radio transmission studios.

February 19, 2008The first designs were done and presented to TRG for approval with a cost estimate of over P436 million. Ten days later, the Department of Sport and Recreation (DSR) said the cost was too high. Hence, the department initiated a cost-reduction exercise, which resulted in the Department of Building and Engineering Services (DBES) issuing a revised brief on March 10, 2008. The major omissions included the stadia retractable roof, multi-purpose hall, practice halls, warm-up tracks, downscaling BNSC offices and downscaling recording studios.

Tender openingNew tender drawings and documentations were completed and submitted to DBES on April 21, 2008 with a certificate of preparedness to tender endorsed by all consultants. Tenders were called and a compulsory bidders' site visit was done on May 5, 2008. The bids were opened at PPADB two weeks later. However, it was found that all contractors were not compliant due to 'funny' registration category requirements by the electrical discipline.

This meant no tender was to be awarded. Though the consultant expressed reservations that the said 'funny' registration category did not appear to be critical to the upgrading of the stadium, DBES ignored the reservations and recommended tender cancellation to PPADB. PPADB agreed to cancel the tender to the dismay of the lead consultant and the consultant quantity surveyor. Instead of re-tendering the same second design scheme, DBES and DSR took advantage of tender cancellation to get the contractor whose lowest bid was P217,983,800.93 to revise their bid to about P60 million.

Third briefThe new and third brief constituted works for the built-up area limited to mechanical, electrical and structural defects as was noted in the Newton McDonald's Report (NMR), the replacement of the athletics' track, re-grassing of the soccer pitch. The remainder of the funds were to be used for the construction of the multi-purpose hall.     

Fourth briefOn July 14, 2008, DBES issued yet another revised scope of work to be re-tendered as follows:

* Pandamatenga stands A and B as previously designed including the seats and related demolitions.

* Provision of 20 offices in one existing stand* Provision of gymnasium hall and allied facilities in one existing stand* Moderate improvements to VIP stands and increase in sitting capacity* Water proofing to three stands with offices below* Repairs to spalling concrete works* Refurbishment to existing toilets* Improvements to soccer pitch and running track* Dwarf wall to the stadium arena* Provision of new goal posts and retractable tunnel* Improvement of arena storm water drainage system* Improvement of parking area behind  the grand stand* Cleaning and re-painting of perimeter   walling* Associated mechanical and electrical   works Technically there were no new works to be done to the National Stadium, only minor repairs.

Third schemeOnce again, tender documents for the third scheme were prepared and tenders were thereafter called. The tender opening was done in PPADB on August 20, 2008. The lowest tender was P66, 601, 782.08 and the highest was P84, 235, 801, 45. After evaluations, concerns were raised about the lowest bidder's unreasonable rates - especially noting that their tender was below the pre-tender estimate. Later it was reported that the bid by the lowest bidder (Hitecon) had an error in excess of P5 million.

The consultant suggested that the contractor had deliberately lowered his contract price in haste, most likely the same morning of the tender return, when the quantity surveyors cost estimate were issued to DBES.

The consultant's report clearly recommended the second lowest bidder, which was more reasonable and close to the quantity surveyor's pre-tender estimates. However, this was ignored by DBES/PPADB and the lowest tender was awarded the contractor.  

Design variationsInstructions that new kiosks be provided in the western stands were among the first variations. A further instruction for concrete protection and painting of the entire stadium was made. Other design variations such as re-introduction of irrigation system soon followed. Existing grass, which was supposed to be removed was left to die, as the contractor, supported by government officials, started arguing and blaming consultants on rates. A sub-contractor, who had tendered with Hitecon, was unceremoniously removed. 'To our trained mind, this was all concerted efforts to recover the P5 million error,' the consultant report said.

These were clear signs that the client was bent on introducing variations at post contract, blaming consultants for design omission while this would only assist the contractor in offsetting the P5 million error. The government was not in line with their original scope of works and undertook these omissions deliberately or in a calculative manner. 

The attempt by the constructor to introduce new soccer pitch designs, well supported by DBES and DSR officers backed by a disgruntled resident engineer were a mere attempt to vary works under the pretext of FIFA standards which are not in the fourth and final brief.